from TheMindUnleashed Website
they would, so long as they remained free, form no conception of good and evil." Baruch Spinoza
Philosophers have been attempting to answer these questions since the dawn of human consciousness.
One can argue that there has been 'progress,' and yet we still find ourselves born unfree...
Governing this precept, it stands to reason that if Spinoza's opening quote is to become self-realized, we must,
Something more in
alignment with the nature of things. Something more conducive with
universal laws and the way the cosmos actually work, as opposed to
the way we've been indoctrinated to think it works.
But becoming free was never meant to be easy.
As Epicurus said,
So what is this more grounded "something" that we should replace the concept of good and evil with?
Let's break it down...
there is a share of everything."
Anaxagoras
What else is such a creature to do but balk and then create concepts of good and evil based upon fear of the unknown?
Here's the thing:
There's no way around that. It's how we live our life that matters...
And in a universe that
dictates health rather than goodness, it behooves us
to come into alignment with the universe's healthy dictation. This
way, goodness is health and the very concept of goodness itself is
more conducive with the way the cosmos actually works rather than
the way our fear-filled forefathers falsely imagined it works.
Caught up in the concept of good and evil, we rely too much on the fallible opinion of mankind. Whereas, coming into alignment with healthy and unhealthy, we can rely on the infallible dictation of universal laws.
For example:
This isn't a matter of opinion. It's not up for debate.
It's dictated by the
cosmos that evolved us into a creature that needs oxygen to survive
and be healthy. Health then is about survival, and the healthier we
are, the better we will be at surviving.
For example:
Health trumps cultural opinion, across the board.
Let's say for example, murder (unhealthy) is evil (opinion). But even still, the two-sided unhealthiness of murder trumps the two-faced middleman of cultural opinion.
So, you might as well just bypass the notion of evil altogether and get to the point:
The opinion that murder is evil is irrelevant compared to the dictation that murder is unhealthy both for the murdered person and for the other people in the vicinity of a murderer.
Again, healthy/unhealthy trumps good/evil...
One can imagine a series of scenarios and almost always, they can be resolved by bypassing the muddying middleman of opinionated, good/evil and focusing instead on the dictation of healthy/unhealthy.
be multiplied unnecessarily."
William of
Ockham
This is where things get a little more complicated. This is because moderation works on a sliding scale.
For example:
The consumption of alcohol is neither unhealthy nor evil, but it can become unhealthy if consumed beyond the dictated scale of moderation.
Once again, the concept
of evil is an irrelevant, outdated and parochial abstraction.
Moderation
and the concept of healthy/unhealthy is all we need to
evolve in a progressive way.
Unlike certain things like crack cocaine:
And even if someone's
opinion was that crack cocaine is healthy, their opinion would be
invalid according to the universal law of health and moderation,
just as the opinion of a priest who believes alcohol or coffee is
evil would be invalid according to the same law.
Universal law cares not about human inconvenience.
And no matter how convenient it is to brainwash each other through the indoctrination of outdated notions of good and evil, it will stand that the concept of healthy and unhealthy makes notions of good and evil irrelevant.
We might as well cut out
the middleman-get rid of parochial good and evil and get better at
using updated healthy and unhealthy with the sliding scale of
moderation to determine right and wrong.
See also Nietzsche's
concept of
Perspectivism...
|